Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really cannot say much beyond what I did on Friday, only refer to some of the other discussion that has gone on in some of the responses that were made by the Premier.
Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons that Members on Friday wanted to delay the decision I guess on the recommendations of committee was to try to review what had happened and piece together why we ended up back in this situation. Mr. Chairman, I for one did not feel it was necessary and I still do not feel it was necessary because this is not a new issue. Mr. Chairman, I think that was taken into serious consideration by the committee when we brought this report forward with its recommendations.
If this was the first instance that this has occurred of this nature, then the committee would probably say, well maybe a motion of censure would be satisfactory, a slap on the hands, let us change the rules and let us get on with business. Mr. Chairman, I have copies of Hansard dating back to October 31, 2000, when this issue started to create problems for this Assembly. It revolved around the creation of the position of chief of staff, how it fit into this government, what was required of that position and was it executive assistant and was it deputy minister. I have in Hansard the Premier on October 31, 2000, page 635; November 1, 2000, page 666; November 16, 2000, page 952; February 21, 2001, page 1138; and October 29, 2001, page 448, where the Premier refers to this as a personal assistant/executive assistant position.
I argued that then the salary should be equivalent to that of an executive position, but we were told, well there are appendices and financially it mirrors that of a deputy minister position. Well if we go by that, Mr. Chairman, the fact and the argument that, as Cabinet put forward of the day, as the Premier stated in this House on public record, that chief of staff position was an executive assistant position, then the findings of the Auditor General's report are absolutely accurate of overpayment to the letter.
As I stated, we became aware during our meeting with the Auditor General, a public meeting held with the Auditor General, that there was involvement in that there was a dispute that came up that, in fact, it is not an executive assistant position. This government forwarded a letter to the Auditor General stating they misread the employment contract and stated that they missed a clause that, in fact, there was reference to a deputy minister contract. Now that seems to follow up and confirm with the Premier's responses on Friday in unedited Hansard where the Premier says on page 2694 there was a response to this whole issue: "On the years of service, for instance, that is the understanding that every deputy minister in this government has that they will get one month for every year of service, not the number of years that they were deputy ministers."
Looking at that comment, Mr. Chairman, as well as page 2696 where he further goes on: "As I understand it, we gave her one month for every year of service, as we have done with every other deputy minister." So which is it?
Mr. Chairman, again I say if this was an isolated incident I think it could be accepted by members of the committee who brought forward this recommendation that this is an isolated incident and that there might have been an oversight, but since October of 2000 this has been a political hot potato as one can say. I can quote what Minister Miltenberger said back in those days about what this job entailed and what it meant. Now I get a different opinion or reason from what is occurring.
We get in Hansard the Premier stating he had no involvement. He actually states on page 2695 of unedited Hansard: "The Auditor General says I was not involved." He stated that on the record here but interestingly enough, Mr. Chairman, of our report to which we had attached the transcripts of our meeting with the Auditor General, Mr. Papineau (page 14): "The Premier provided the direction to Liz Snider to pay maximum performance pay." So again which is it?
There is no misunderstanding. There is a theme here. For many years, for three years from October 2000 when this issue started to cause concern to this Assembly, that is why I come forward, Mr. Chairman, and support the recommendation as they are laid out. This is not an isolated incident. In fact, as other Members of this House said, well maybe you know if we had party politics, as I heard Mr. Braden seem to bring into the House here, that something like this might not occur. Well, for sure it would not occur, because the government would have a majority and they could deflect everything that we as Members would try to bring forward in questioning the government of bringing credibility and accountability to this House.
It is because we have this system that we as Regular Members could question and get some responses. This proves that the system works. When the government goes outside its existing policies and regulations, we can call them to task, as much as they dislike it.
It is laid out quite clearly, Mr. Chairman, that we have a significant problem here. I heard on Friday Members discuss "Well, we are too late in our mandate. We have too many things going on" as we heard from Mr. Lafferty who spoke very well earlier, that this government does not hinge on any one of us. It takes a team. We have not had a team for quite some time because of the approaches that have occurred. In fact, we have been running in separate directions, even in Cabinet. We can point out many examples where Cabinet was running on their own. There was no team. The team comes together when the orders are told you do it this way. You vote this way. Forget your constituents. You have to do it this way. Cabinet solidarity.
Well, we all will take into account, and I, like Mr. Delorey, will say that I have no fear of going back to my constituents and saying I took the right stance, that I have done my job, that I have tried to work with this government and hold it to a measure of accountability that I would consider to be held to as a Regular Member or a Member, in the previous government, as Minister as well.
We are not perfect, and I accept that. Mistakes will happen. I accept that. However, there is such a trail here, Mr. Chairman, that I would have great difficulty in believing, and that is why I made the motion that if we are not willing to act and follow our own laws, that it is time to go to a new election to get the people to give a new government a new mandate. I still stand behind that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.